Washington State Interpretation Mtg.

[coachz_216]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Just because you don't like the rule, he has a lack of understanding of the game?

I don't think so.

A defender who attempts to establish a guarding position with his foot OOB has gained a distinct advantage over a dribbler. Why should he be allowed to go OOB when the dribbler cannot?

The dribbler has the ball.

That one's easy.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rockyroad
[/B]

Bull$hit...your rule book and the Fed interp call it a block, fine...but no way is that common sense! And JR, you should know me well enough by now to know that when I call a HS game, I will do my darndest to get it right by Fed rules - including the things I think the Fed is wrong about.
[/B][/QUOTE]Rock, when did "common sense" become a part of this particular discussion? Or as a prerequisite for one of the FED's interpretations either?

Know what? The problem still is that your state interpreters are telling you that they DON'T want this play called by FED rules. They want it called by their rule instead. However, if everybody in your state calls the play uniformly, then there AIN'T a problem now locally, is there? The problem is, was and always has been trying to attain uniformity on calls from region to region, or state to state, etc. That's what the FED is trying to do by issuing these interpretations. Coaches and players have to know what to expect from us. In this case, they have to know how this play is gonna be called so that they can teach and use the defensive techniques that will conform to the rule as called, not necessarily as it is written. If coaches and players in Washington know how you guys are gonna call this, and it get's called uniformly, then nobody should have any b*tches imo. Where the problem might come into play though is when your teams go into other states, and run into officials that do call the play as written by rule.

[coachz_216]

Thanks for the discussion--I'll be back.

I've learned alot today & as I transition from being a coach back to being an official, I'll need to learn even more.

Thanks,
ex-Coach

[rockyroad]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Bull$hit...your rule book and the Fed interp call it a block, fine...but no way is that common sense! And JR, you should know me well enough by now to know that when I call a HS game, I will do my darndest to get it right by Fed rules - including the things I think the Fed is wrong about.
[/B]

Rock, when did "common sense" become a part of this particular discussion? Or as a prerequisite for one of the FED's interpretations either?

Know what? The problem still is that your state interpreters are telling you that they DON'T want this play called by FED rules. They want it called by their rule instead. However, if everybody in your state calls the play uniformly, then there AIN'T a problem now locally, is there? The problem is, was and always has been trying to attain uniformity on calls from region to region, or state to state, etc. That's what the FED is trying to do by issuing these interpretations. Coaches and players have to know what to expect from us. In this case, they have to know how this play is gonna be called so that they can teach and use the defensive techniques that will conform to the rule as called, not necessarily as it is written. If coaches and players in Washington know how you guys are gonna call this, and it get's called uniformly, then nobody should have any b*tches imo. Where the problem might come into play though is when your teams go into other states, and run into officials that do call the play as written by rule. [/B][/QUOTE]

Agreed...and I don't think the state was saying to disregard the rule - just (as far as what I got out of the presentation)not to be too worried about that foot barely touching a line...aas far as common sense - I think it was BushRef who brought that into the mix, and i vehemently disagreed with that having anything to do with this rule...

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee
Where the problem might come into play though is when your teams go into other states, and run into officials that do call the play as written by rule.

Do you really see that as a problem? I have done games from teams in Iowa and Wisconsin and they did not have a coaching box the same as the IHSA and they functioned. I have never had a problem with a state deciding they want to do something specific to their state. Whether it is rules or mechanics that is up to them to decide what is going to be used or ignored. We have a mercy rule that applies to our games. It is not listed in the rulebook and the parameters and application are not listed anywhere. But guess what is going to happen when other states come in a play a basketball game. They will adhere to this rule unless otherwise stated.

Peace

[ChuckElias]

Originally posted by coachz_216
So are you saying that you could have a defender with a foot OOB (by rule not legal guarding position) and call a player control foul on a dribbler for initiating contact?

Yes, that's what he's saying. If the dribbler "clears out" with his off arm, or swats away the defender's hand, those are still PC fouls, even if the defender has a foot OOB.

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by JRutledge

Do you really see that as a problem?

Yeah, I could see this one as maybe being a problem. Coaches box variances, the substitution rule after a foul-out that you guys tried last year and special mercy rules are not really related to what's happening on the floor. Defensive positioning using different concepts could be a problem though. You could have one team that has had it drilled into them that they have to keep their feet inbounds at all times while playing defense; and another team that was coached to try and maintain a defensive guarding position in front of a dribbler without ever worrying about whether they stepped OOB or not while doing so; and you now combine both of those teams with a crew of officials that follows the book and always calls a block if a defender is touching a line when contact occurs. Could be a factor in a key call down the stretch for the team that's used to getting away with standing on an OOB line while playing defense. Could also be a screaming coach too if he's not used to seeing a block called every time there's contact with a defender standing OOB.

[rockyroad]

Originally posted by ChuckElias

Yes, that's what he's saying. If the dribbler "clears out" with his off arm, or swats away the defender's hand, those are still PC fouls, even if the defender has a foot OOB.

Hmmm...but if the player lowers his/her shoulder and plants the defender in the 5th row of bleachers, then it's a block because the foot was oob, but not a block if they "clear out" with the off arm...and someone in an earlier post said this was "common sense"??

[Jurassic Referee]

Originally posted by rockyroad
[/B]

Hmmm...but if the player lowers his/her shoulder and plants the defender in the 5th row of bleachers, then it's a block because the foot was oob [/B][/QUOTE]Naw, how about a "T" instead on the defender for going OOB to try and gain an advantage?

Hmmmmm, I think that I might be able to find some language from the FED in the last coupla years that might support that too, come to think of it.

[rockyroad]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Hmmm...but if the player lowers his/her shoulder and plants the defender in the 5th row of bleachers, then it's a block because the foot was oob [/B]

Naw, how about a "T" instead on the defender for going OOB to try and gain an advantage?

Hmmmmm, I think that I might be able to find some language from the FED in the last coupla years that might support that too, come to think of it. [/B][/QUOTE]

OK, now you're just being a smart-a$$...up till now this has been a very clear, well-defined discussion of the merits of...oh never mind...

[zebraman]

Originally posted by JRutledge
You mean that Z has been on my behind about rulings our state has taken that seem contrary with the NF, now Washington is doing something they choose to do? I am in shock. This cannot be happening can it?

I guess a NF state can make up their own rulings.

Peace

Rut, Rut, Rut. You have never let reality affect any of your posts so why should you start now. I think you are quite aware that I have always been against individuals implementing their own interpretations, not states. My problem has always been with assignors or "powerfl officials" who tell their officials to "do things this way" when they are clearly contrary to accepted NFHS rules and state interpretations.

Z

[Dan_ref]

Originally posted by Jurassic Referee

Hmmm...but if the player lowers his/her shoulder and plants the defender in the 5th row of bleachers, then it's a block because the foot was oob [/B]

Naw, how about a "T" instead on the defender for going OOB to try and gain an advantage?

Hmmmmm, I think that I might be able to find some language from the FED in the last coupla years that might support that too, come to think of it. [/B][/QUOTE]

I support this ruling, unless the defender is the last player left who has not been DQ'ed.

[rainmaker]

Hey, Ray, if you're going out for popcorn and coke, get me one too, please!

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by zebraman


Rut, Rut, Rut. You have never let reality affect any of your posts so why should you start now. I think you are quite aware that I have always been against individuals implementing their own interpretations, not states. My problem has always been with assignors or "powerfl officials" who tell their officials to "do things this way" when they are clearly contrary to accepted NFHS rules and state interpretations.

Z

Wait a freakin minute Z. I never gave you and "individual" ruling in our previous discussion. I gave you a ruling that was supported and assigned by people that had power to make such a decision. I gave you a mechanic that dealt with what the Head Clinician and Rules Interpreter told all officials to do and you got all over me because it was "not what the NF supported." I was not telling you someone that did not work for the IHSA and just assigned a conference. I am telling you the person that decides these things told us to use a specific mechanic and you came on here and criticized that left and right and now you are saying basically that your state decided to give you guys a ruling and you are supporting it. I personally have no problem with your state's ruling. I do not live there. But I am saying you got on me and my state for doing the very same thing. Even Bob Jenkins told you that is what this individual was hired by the state to do and you dismissed it. Now our state has not told us to ever ignore the rulebook, but there has been commentary on what was common sense or might be likely called from an official's perspective. Our Head Clinician is also the main Rules Interpreter and hires all the clinicians for the State of Illinois in at least football, basketball and baseball. I am sure it is the case in other sports here, but these people give rulings on mechanics and rules when there is something that is not clear.

I do not know what the heck you are talking about an "individual" ruling? Now you are basically saying the same thing and you are talking about how wonderful that decision is. Sounds very hypocritical if you ask me.

Peace

[Camron Rust]

Originally posted by JRutledge

I agree that this is a rule, but it is a tough rule to enforce based on previous training. This is a case where the rule makers create something without considering all the ramifications of enforcement. These are obviously not "officials" that are making these decisions.

Peace

There you go again making unfounded assertions. Nearly every one of the people on the rules committee are accomplished officials.

You may not like they decisions they make nor the quality of their writing but that doesn't mean anything about them being "officials".